To ask what is so bad about zero hour contracts

[Idontlikecheesecake]

I know there’s a lot of controversy about them and the government want to get rid of them, but they’ve always worked for me. Ive always had contracted hours and then had a zero hours contract as an extra. They paid weekly so they helped me budget with monthly pay. I could do an extra shift i wanted to, and i didnt have to if i didnt want to. Last year i walked out of a job, and the zero hours contract i had was the only thing that kept me going until i started new employment 3 months later.

I get that they don’t have pensions, many don’t pay holiday and some places don’t offer enough hours (that was why I registered with a few agencies). But surely a contract that says you may get some work in line with your availability is better than nothing at all?

I hate them. I was on one for about four months when I was desperate for money and it was awful. Some weeks I got 28 hours, some weeks I got 6. You can't budget because you have no idea what you'll be getting (it was a weekly rota so you had to wait until the day before to find out if you had any money coming in). I didn't call in sick but I know they'd be mad if I did. Everything has to be done before we left and we didn't get paid past 6pm and normally didn't leave until 6:30 at least (we closed sometimes at 5:30/6 and then all the things after had to be done such as sweeping, mopping, filling up stock etc). It's so hard not knowing if you'll make bills meet because you don't know what hours you'll be getting.

The alternative to a zero hours contact isn’t no contract at all, that’s the fundamental fallacy here.

The alternative is regular employment with proper benefits and rights.

Naive of me, I know, but I'm surprised at the number of posters who say they didn't/don't get holiday pay on ZHCs.

Some employers add a percentage of "holiday pay" to the pay for the hours actually worked, so that after 12 months you have had the equivalent of 28 days paid time off, according to the hours you have worked over the year. This is illegal. They should pay you a week's pay when you take a week's leave, and the amount of holiday pay is based on an average of the previous 12 weeks.

Employers bloody hate this, as anyone with any nous will rack their hours up to the max for the period before they take leave.

DP (payroll manager) has left jobs when employers have refused to pay ZHC staff holiday pay, or insisted on paying it by "rolling up" the holiday pay with the normal pay. He's also blown the whistle on them after he's left and, in one case, this led to an investigation by the low pay unit and the company had to compensate all their current- and ex-employees on ZHCs.

I'd recommend anyone on a ZHC and not getting holiday pay to speak to ACAS. You could find yourself in for a small windfall if you've been being ripped off for a while!

Zero hours and other forms of "flexible" employment (flexible mainly for the employer) are fine for people who don't want commitments and who have the skills and assets to make not working for a period viable.

Terrible for everyone else.

My DH is one of the people who benefit from these sorts of arrangements - he has mental health issues which make salaried work impossible but he also has skills which make him highly employable. He can also rely on my salary when he is too ill to work. But just because this business model works for one (privileged) person does not mean it works for everyone.

@Idontlikecheesecake are you coming back to the thread? Or is this just one of those controversial post grenades that get lobbed in, then OP runs, never to return?

Do you understand now, why ZHC are disliked so much?

Not really workable for someone who needs a regular income and I'm stumped as to why anyway in that situation would agree to it to be honest. Why not just get a job with a regular amount of contracted hours?
Maybe because they have no other options and there are no other jobs.

My friend passed away a few years back. Her husband was on a zhc. He had to work to pay bills rather than taking the time he needed to grieve. Cruel.

Why are zero hour contracts so bad says the person with a fixed contract and uses the zero hours as pocket money. Honestly if I don't see this thread used as fodder in the mail I'll be disappointed

Hi OP,

Glad this worked for you but I hated being on a zero hour contract.

Every week my shifts would change as in I would be given 20 hours one week, 11 the next and some weeks only 7 or none at all. I only worked part time and really needed the money.

What is more, say i had a shift 11 to 6, when the next girl came in at 3 they would send me home most weekends. However, if they put me down for a shift and I could not do it then I am being told its my job and I have no choice in the matter.

Managers treat you like crap and you get less hours on the weeks they want to pick on you.These really should end.

My son is a university student in a city and has a zero hours contract as a bar assistant at a busy events venue. It suits him as he can pick and choose when he wants to work so during heavy work load/ exam time he works less shifts.
He has always been able to work the shifts he has chosen. Very often, the venue has to call in agency workers to cover shifts. Probably because the shifts are always from around 5pm to midnight so unsociable hours for the majority of workers.

So for students then I think zero hours contract can work well.

They are great as a flexible 2nd job to top up your income but no use as a main job. I would never have one as my only source of income. However I have had one as a 2nd source of income for when we are feeling the pinch for many years.

the government want to get rid of them

Wrong. This government loves them as it means they can fudge the employment stats.

The Labour Party (and the Greens) want to bring the employer-employee balance back, by guaranteeing a minimum number of hours to those that want them. That's the way they used to work, when they benefited both parties and not just the employer.

I worked in care on a zero hours contract, when my DC were at secondary school. I initially started off at 16 hours during school hours but that was a ruse I think to lure me in. Some weeks I'd have over 46 hours, the next I'd have 12. And they were on the phone constantly "can you cover X this afternoon". It was totally horrendous, and I felt completely at their mercy. I didn't matter how many times i said I didn't like leaving my DC at home for hours on their own. The final straw was being refused leave when my eldest DD needed a MRI scan after a car accident and they told me to get a family member to cover it. I handed my notice in that day. I never knew what I was working from one week to the next, and got my rota for the week on a Sunday evening at 9pm.

I'd never work like that again.

I have a combination of 'gig' economy work (where you are 'freelance' or 'self employed' but depend on the companies to supply you with work which you are paid on a piece-meal basis), zero hours contract (where there may be no work some weeks and some work on others) and part-time contracted work.

The 'gig' work and 'zero hours' work offer: no sick pay, no holiday pay, no payment for training necessary for the role and no guarantee or work. I also feel obliged to take more work than I can easily manage, if it is available, because there may be little or no work the next week.

With the gig work, I also pay my own 'self-employed' taxes.

So what is wrong with zero hours contacts or other contracts such as 'casual' worker contracts or 'freelance' work that should really be contractual?

It is wrong because the people who work in these capacities have no rights at all (no rights to sickness pay, no rights to paid holidays and so on) and really have no right to complain if they have no hours or 'pieces' to work.

If I am too ill to work, the only income that will come into our household is the small amount from the contracted p/t work. It would not be enough to pay the rent. If I have no hours to work, I have no money (except from the little that is earned from the p/t contract).

Finally zero hours contracts may demand availability which makes it difficult for the individual to find another job.

Fair enough, I didn’t realise they were used in such a variety of industries. Ive always worked in the care and supporting sector, where the needs of the clients are always changing and there was always plenty of work for me. Currently work in the nhs and theres always bank work going there, and you can book it online so no one is pressuring you to book. But thats just my experience of it, I wanted to hear other people’s experiences too

But i dont agree with bars and retailers to have them, based on what ive read. Their need would be pretty consistent at all times, witht he exception of Christmas, when they should be able to get temps in with contracted hours.

I don't think they should be used in care and support work unless absolutely necessary.

Patients in residential care and clients in supported accommodation need continuity and a huge part of that is building relationships/trust.

Someone turning up who has never worked in the setting, doesn't know the systems and clients is less than ideal.
They're used to prop up a system with staffing issues and poor management. They cost the service more that effective recruitment and have a detrimental effect on client care and morale.

I've had them 30 yrs ago and thought they were great. Actually, could quite suit me now, too... I can't comment about modern Britain.

Was my only source of income, tbf in situations where I was only supporting me not others. For months as a temp (so I did a huge variety of jobs which was perfect), months in fast food industry & 4 yrs in a grocery store. Met my needs. I almost never had to say no to work offered, though. This was in a country where we don't get sick pay or holiday pay, pensions don't happen on casual wages, so those not issues. Plus you need a highly professional job to get a mortgage where I grew up. So also irrelevant. My hours ended up being quite regular, so always had income. I had colleagues with similar contracts & they had mortgages, come to think of it. There was some kind of way.

But i dont agree with bars and retailers to have them, based on what ive read. Their need would be pretty consistent at all times, witht he exception of Christmas, when they should be able to get temps in with contracted hours.

Which is exactly how it used to be. I worked in a supermarket in the 90s, and they'd recruit extra staff at Christmas. I had a 20 hour contract, with fixed days and hours, plus holiday pay, etc, and Sundays, once Sunday trading started, would be voluntary overtime, paid at double time. When I needed to earn a bit more that month, I'd put myself down for a Sunday or two. It was great, and I felt valued as a member of staff.

But, once ZHC came in, they all rubbed their hands in glee.

I’ve been on a zero hour contract for 10 years and it’s never bit my ass, I have between 16-25 per week. The thing is people know about it before they jump on board, as long as you work well I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve been offered a full time contract on a number of occasions however due to familay circumstances I can’t do it.

Just because it works for you Sophisticatedsarcasm, it doesn't mean it works for everyone.

The problem lies in the inequality of the bargaining relationship - it's something that shifts the balance too firmly in the favour of employers, rather than providing genuine flexibility for both parties.

@lonelyamongus
I guess it all depends on your manager and company. I have every weekend off which no one else has. If I have a problem I don’t get penalised for it.
But the OP asked are they really that bad and I gave my answer.

My uni student child was on a zhc with a major hospital site. Put down for hours all over the Xmas break. - fantastic. Until they were sent home after 1or 2 hours on most days.

I suppose they're like everything else in life. They'll be suitable for some but not for others. Which is why I don't think people should be forced to take these types of jobs.
Yes They're great if youre married to a banker or a CEO of huge company and you just want some pin money to play about with and to get you out of the house
However If you're a single parent
You couldn't manage on a ZHC.
Not knowing how you're going to pay your mortgage or rent put food on the table. In the Real world which none of these Tory Tosspots have ever had to live in. You just can't survive like that.

*Some employers use them in place of actual contract. I had a zero hours contract but did the same hours every week. They did pay me sick pay and I did pay into a pension scheme.
However I didn't get holiday pay and they didn't contribute much to the pension.
So to all intents and purposes I was a normal employee but with fewer benefits.

In this scenerio it should be banned. I had to apply to HR for day off for a funeral like any employee would so I had no chance of saying' oh I'm zero hours so I'm not working that day'

Just rubbish.*

A major supermarket near us operates on a very similar basis. Staff are either on a ZHC or a very low number of hours e.g. 6 per week. But they are expected to be available for 39 hours per week; failure to be available for a shift will see them getting offered nothing in future weeks. So they cannot take another job and are expected to have childcare in place full time. Often they will work the full 39 hours but sometimes it can be lower.

They should be on 39 hour a week contracts imo. The supermarket is getting all the benefits of full time staff members and none of the downsides.